Why Globalists Want CO2 Reduction

The relationship between per capita CO2 emissions and quality of life is very straightforward. The more CO2, the higher the quality of life. By forcing westerners to reduce CO2 emissions, globalists (i.e. old commies) hope to reduce our quality of life and thus achieve their insane vision of social justice and reduced income inequality. It has nothing to do with climate or rational thinking.

In order to achieve their goals, they have to tell an awful lot of lies. One of the favorites is to make people believe CO2 looks like this, and causes “catastrophe.”

In fact, CO2 looks like the picture below, has very little impact on climate, and makes plants grow faster – thus improving quality of life.

The coal/gas fired power plant above is extremely clean, but the nearby burning plant matter (below) is very dirty. If people had to burn wood to keep warm, our air would be unbreathable.

What globalists didn’t count was Donald Trump coming along, and ending their plan to destroy the west. We are throwing them out and Making America Great Again.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Why Globalists Want CO2 Reduction

  1. Steve Case says:

    Poloctal parties need a constituency to vote them into office:

    Republicans, the party of the rich need to have a lot of rich people to vote them into office. Democrats, the party of the poor ….

    • Gail Combs says:

      DemonRats, the party of the INSANE ….

      Trump’s party is the party of the common man.

      Finally – Forgotten No More…

    • SxyxS says:

      So-Hitlery Clinton ,the biggest billionaires Whore of mankind(sponsored by people like Soros or the saudi-fascist etc etc)and democrat
      was about being for the poor??
      Thanks to obama the income gap between rich and poor increased
      and more people on foodstamps then ever before.
      Billions to the bankers and trillions for wars and weapons,refusing to jail bankers while persecuting more whistleblowers than all presidents before him and making as much debt as all other us presidents combined
      while ruining infrastructure ,destroying the middle class((even the number of black house owners shrinked by 10%))-
      where is all the money gone and where has he helped the poor?
      60 years ago black people owned more than 15 million acres in the usa
      ,since then they started to vote democrats:
      Today they own less than 7 million acres.

      Well-i’m neither american nor do i think that there is a real difference between neocons and neoliberals and most of democratic or republican politicians
      but Trump must be doing something right when the media owning oligarchs are shooting with tv and their presstitutes as much as they can.

      You should read:”The globalisation of poverty(by the imf)”
      than you”ll know how right Tony is.

      This communistic trick is very easy:
      By making everyone pisspoor noone will think he is poor.
      1) SJW etc complain that eg. not working and 800 dollars/month social welfare isnt enough and unjust capitalist rape.
      2)than they bring communism.
      3)When you have communism you don’t get 800 dollars a month but
      400 dollars a year.
      4)and then they call it fair.
      5)people realise that they’ve been fooled,
      but it is too late.Everything was centralised(=10planks of marxism=blueprint for excommunist Moussolini and Hitler),people had already been disarmed.
      And the killing starts.
      As people are not “good” in killing their own they use army forces from other regions((gues why they want a united EU army))

      The average annual income of north korea and cuba for working people is >400dollars= the party for the poor lolololol.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    humph.. no fair, Where is Australia on the first graph ..

    I know, we are just an itty bitty country,. :-(

  3. Kris Johanson says:

    Where’d they get that picture with the 4 belching smoke stacks?! This must be a picture from the 1930’s or from Soviet Eastern Europe in the 1980’s! Sometimes they blow steam, but not from all 4 boilers at the same time I wouldn’t think – plus it’s typically from the tube-side not the fire-side. Anybody on this forum operate a coal plant? Obviously a very old picture or some photo editing going on.

    • GeologyJim says:

      Whoa, K.J., take a deep breath —

      That photo only shows industrial chimneys discharging water vapor.

      It’s a standard trick of the Loony Left to photograph steam discharges that are back-lit by the sun to make the clouds look dark and ominous. Their staged shots all originate from high-humidity areas which guarantees lots of condensating water vapor and optically-thick clouds of discharge. Rank amatuer propaganda schtick.

      Tony’s second photo shows the Boulder, Colorado, power plant under normal, low-humidity conditions looking away from the sun. No condensation, no clouds, no ominous-looking discharge.

      Literally, “Nothing to see here. Move along”

      • BruceC says:

        Australia’s largest PS, Eraring, on the shores of Lake Macquarie NSW. <20k's from where I live.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Agreed, and agreed. Yes, that was basically my point, albeit clumsily-worded.

        I was thinking that modernly I don’t believe a plant operator could even gain permission from Air Resources Board to blow off that kind of steam from the fire-side of a boiler (I’m pretty sure steam blow is normally done on the tube-side of a boiler anyway, during start up and perhaps maintenance, so it wouldn’t be coming from the stacks – it would be on the water side, not the combustion side of the tubes) – and they certainly wouldn’t do it during daylight hours. The quantity of steam shown in the (fake) picture way-exceeds any water-of-combustion meeting cold outside air. My conclusion being that the photo from ‘Climate Change’ isn’t even a recent photo

        • oeman50 says:

          KJ, I agree, it is not a steam blow and it is also not water of combustion. But a boiler with a scrubber on it ends up with flue gas going to the stack saturated with moisture at close to 150F. When the gas hits the air, billowing clouds of water vapor are created, constantly.

          • Kris Johanson says:

            That’s a good point

          • cdquarles says:

            Correct. There is a coal fired electricity generation plant about 10 miles from me, as the crow flies. It had the standard scrubbers, so when the outside air is relatively dry and the plant’s coal fires are going strong, you get a condensation cloud near the stack, but not at it. Said plant got a ‘green’ grant for carbon capture and storage. Well, guess what, there’s carbon capture and storage also nearby. Er, was, for there’s a very large marble quarry that’s been around some 300 years. The marble is very high quality, nearly pure calcium carbonate. There are not very many of those in the world.

    • Edmonton Al says:

      Don’t forget that photographers use filters foe effect………..

  4. Kris Johanson says:

    The drastic headline says, “Welcome to 400 ppm…..Climate Catastrophe”

    Here’s some evidence, anyway, that we were sitting at 400 ppm CO2 back in 1864. This is taken from what is probably the most respected Chemistry treatise from the mid-1800’s.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      1864 Miller, vol. 2

    • Adrian says:

      Nice finding!

      I see that the other values are quite close to current measurements, which shows they were not bad at all at measuring them.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Exactly. If you look at 18th-19th century Chemists & Physicists, these people were fanatical about building accurate/precise models and doing accurate measurements. They were building physical models which gave very close values for the actual mass of the earth, the speed of light, and so on.

  5. John Niclasen says:

    Looking at electricity alone, USA seems to start having problems 8-9 years ago.

    From: http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/

  6. Adam Gallon says:

    Small point, but Norway’s electricity is largely from hydroelectricity, which is unsurprising given its low population & mountainous country.
    Iceland’s is virtually entirely hydro & geothermal, again, no surprise as it’s really one bloody great, snow covered volcano!

  7. CheshireRed says:

    The Guardian’s Paul Mason has now gone full-mentaloid bonkers with an off the scale piece where ‘catastrophe’, ‘devastation’ and ‘save the earth’ are fused with political activism to create unmitigated green-eyed fury. In time it may even be up there with the Indy’s now-legendary piece from Dr David ‘Children won’t know what snow is anymore’ Viner. It really has to be read to be believed.

    ‘It’s time to overcome queasiness and restraint. We, the liberal and progressive people of the world, are at war with the far right to save the earth.’


    PS. Some have speculated about what the next climate ‘catastrophe’ could be. Again the Guardian is at the front of the queue, this time promoting ‘oxygen depletion’. Looks like we’re all doomed all over again.


    • AndyG55 says:

      Paul Mason.. PhD in Music….

      get study to be yabbering about climate science.. very appropriate. :-)

      ZERO comprehension of even basic science, apparently.

      “A former member of the Trotskyist Workers’ Power group (a splinter of the Socialist Workers Party)”

      Do tell !! :-)

      Only the far, far loony left would ever bother listening to this dope. !!!

  8. Griff says:

    Germans have more renewable energy, less CO2 output per head than the US and one of the best lifestyles in the Western world.

    Germany has less poverty than the US and less income inequality…

    Perhaps more renewables = better living standards?

  9. Kris Johanson says:

    Yes, yes, I’ve noticed a common argument is that European Socialist countries have a high standard of living – therefore what’s wrong with Socialism?

    GDP per capita (a common measure of standard-of-living):
    USA $55,800
    Germany $41,000
    France $37,700

    It’s true that Norway is $74,800, but it has a pretty small population. There’s more people living within a 1-hr radius of my house than there are in the entire country of Norway – so I’m not sure you can directly compare their GDP.

    • Hats off... says:

      Nothing to do with fossil fuels from the North Sea? Ironically, I think in terms of fossil fuel exports, Norway is second to Saudi Arabia, although the US may have caught up by now.

  10. David A says:

    Socialism in a small homogenous nation of morality and decent work ethic can work. However capitalism works in such a culture equally well or better.

  11. The graph of GDP v Energy is good. I used similar graphs of per capita kWh per country and others of life expectancy at birth to try to convince the nuclear safety licensing board to clear the South Texas Nuclear Project. Basically, delays in licensing “the nuke” would, if the correlations between the work-energy theorem and the ability to work for a living had anything to do with reality, constitute a health hazard. Why? Because an act that results in a probable net decrease in life expectancy for a given population poses a health hazard by as clear a definition of the term as anyone cares to spell out. Unit 1 celebrated its 25th year of safe operation last summer.

  12. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    I agree. Worldwide equalization of standards of living in the UN’s one-world government was the real goal of CO2 reduction, just as . . .

    Fear of worldwide nuclear annihilation was the real reason for uniting nations (UN) and National Academies of Sciences (UNAS) on 24 OCT 1945 to hide the source of energy in atomic bombs.

    But that source of energy, neutron repulsion, cannot be hidden because it is indelibly recorded in exact rest masses of the ~3,000 types of atoms that compromise all matter.

    Nuclear energy, calculated from a baseline that slopes relative to mass (See Figures 1 & 2) is very obviously biased relative to Einstein’s original 1905 report that rest mass (m) is stored energy (E):

    E = mc^2


  13. John Niclasen says:

    Pipeline protestors seem to be unconcerned about the environment.

    Locals in North Dakota Blame Out-Of-State Activists For Pollution From Anti-Pipeline Protest

Leave a Reply to SxyxS Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.